Slashdot Mirror
MPAA Fires Back at AACS Decryption Utility
RulerOf writes "The AACS Decryption utility released this past December known as BackupHDDVD originally authored by Muslix64 of the Doom9 forums has received its first official DMCA Takedown Notice. It has been widely speculated that the utility itself was not an infringing piece of software due to the fact that it is merely "a textbook implementation of AACS," written with the help of documents publicly available at the AACS LA's website, and that the AACS Volume Unique Keys that the end user isn't supposed to have access to are in fact the infringing content, but it appears that such is not the case." From the thread "...you must input keys and then it will decrypt the encrypted content. If this is the case, than according to the language of the DMCA it does sound like it is infringing. Section 1201(a) says that it is an infringement to "circumvent a technological measure." The phrase, "circumvent a technological measure" is defined as "descramb(ling) a scrambled work or decrypt(ing) an encrypted work, ... without the authority of the copyright owner." If BackupHDDVD does in fact decrypt encrypted content than per the DMCA it needs a license to do that."
Legality aside, they must know they will never eliminate this utility. DVD Decrypter is still easy enough to find. And that is something a lot of people might be interested in compared to the number of people who actually own a HD Disc.
Libertarian Leaning Political Discussion Forum.
You can't copyright a telephone number. I don't see why an encryption key should be any different. It doesn't represent a creative work and should not be subject to copyright protections. At best an encrytion key would be considered a trade secret. Of course a "secret" that is readable to anyone with a debugger isn't much of a secret.
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
Going by the 'logic' in the article, *all* AES implementations (i.e. software included on most of the world's computers) are forbidden by the DMCA.
After all, someone somewhere might use any of them, along with a key acquired separately, to decrypt some media for which they don't own the copyright.
"The worst tyrannies were the ones where a governance required its own logic on every embedded node." - Vernor Vinge
A man has to run from the law because he wrote a program that lets people watch videos, and you can't find anything wrong with that?
Why is it that when you believe something it's an opinion, but when I believe something it's a manifesto?
"If BackupHDDVD does in fact decrypt encrypted content than per the DMCA it needs a license to do that."
Yep - and the users who are entering keys for encrypted content should do exactly that. The software is no more a violation of DMCA than is the PC it runs on. Oh wait - I guess that's where we're headed, isn't it?
But they can file take-down notices against anyone hosting the thing.
They can file take-down notices against anyone in the US hosting the thing.
Trolling is a art,
Nah, he'll have some stupid line of code that identifies him. Or they'll reveal something that connects it to him.
By anonymous, I mean without connection or identity, not pretending to be someone else. They get subversives every time by their need to maintain their self identity in some form, be it though personal expression or some other random link that forensics easily trails back like a string right to the perps (which is what you are if you're doing anything creative these days with computers).
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
That's a violation of the DMCA
in USA and applicable only to US residents
the other 5.7 billion people can enjoy their HD rips
Technically Toshiba has created a device which makes it possible for someone to violate the rights of content creators by playing an HD DVD movie in front of an audience using a Toshiba HD DVD player and a big screen HD TV.
And technically speaking just because a law is passed by the Congress doesn't mean it is constituionally legal.
burnin
I have to wonder why so many post here still talks about how the DMCA do not apply, how the utility is legal, etc.
Isn't it obvious by now that what DMCA and other laws really said never mattered to **AA? Lawsuits, DMCA notices, etc, are simply hammers to beat down any opposition so the **AA members can keep reaping profits with their outdated business models.
As long as the hammers are useful, it will be used. Saying that the hammer is not made to hit people is not going to help. As long as DMCA notices can take down stuff they do not like, it will be used and abused. Saying that DMCA is not applicable here is not going to help.
I don't know what should be done about these **AA tactics. However, I do know that telling a street thug that punching below the belt is unethical will be futile.
Oliver.
Jurisdiction has never seemed to have much influence on where the take-down notices go . . . .
They can enforce take-down notices against anyone in the US. Fixed.
There is absolutely no need for anyone like this to do interviews unless they have some sort of self-congratulatory outlook on greyhat coding. Any number of onlookers, including slashdotters could tell exactly what was meant by certain actions or features in any project. The only people doing interviews are looking for attention and that's not the point, IMHO.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
...When the copyright owner has given the user both the encrypted data and the key to decrypt it with? Surely if they don't want people decrypting their secret content they wouldn't do something as stupid as that, would they?
I absolutely agree that if our society had really degraded to the point that it was no longer safe to share information it would be possible for things like this to be posted with complete anonymity. If the world had truly become a horrible dystopian nightmare, that might even be absolutely necessary.
I like to think that we're not there yet, and that it's still safe for people to share what they know with full credit for the work they have done to obtain that knowledge. If the world has really progressed to the point where sharing simple knowledge is no longer safe, then we have a worse problem than simply being locked out of the content of some video disks.
-- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
The problem is they are correct that this IS illegal. The DMCA is a law and it prohibits this activity. Now of course the DMCA itself is illegal as well which means they'll just use it as a club against someone but drop the case before it can be proved unconstitutional.
But the police won't.
Why is it that when you believe something it's an opinion, but when I believe something it's a manifesto?
Next, on Slashdot, the MPAA sues God for decrypting all their copyrighted works!
(T>t && O(n)--) == sqrt(666)
Trade secret law - and really what's going on here is that the MPAA (or whoever - probably some front group) will only license you their secrets if you promise to use them a particular way and not release them - it's a great idea, you even potentially have someone to sue if the secret gets out .... what you don't have is a comeback if someone invents the same thing or figures out how it works on their own .... which is what's going on here
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
My computer allowed me to run my operating system which allowed me to download this utility which allowed me to circumvent this encryption.
Not to worry. With the advent of Trusted Computing, your next computer won't.
The important phrase is "without the authority of the copyright holder". If you own the disc, you are entitled by sole virtue of ownership to use it for its rightful purpose -- which (assuming it is just an ordinary, home-viewing sell-through disc) is to watch the movie stored on it, in private. The copyright holder cannot prevent you from doing that, without rendering the disc unfit for its rightful purpose (and therefore owing you a refund of the purchase price you paid).
Go ahead and decrypt. Either you do have the authority of the copyright holder, or the disc is unfit for purpose and you are owed a full refund. In either case, you will find your purchase receipt very helpful.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
The real question is: can they take away the right you have to do with your property what you want? You buy a BR (or DVD, for that matter). You want to watch it on Linux. What now? Can they say: you cannot do that? Your analogy with breaking in is a straw man. You have been given the right to watch the movie on your equipment. It doesn't specify what equipment anywhere on the disk, the receipt or in the store. Copyright laws say that I cannot distribute the content without permission. I'm not doing that. I can't display it publicly, not doing that either. Can't make illegal copies, not trying to do that. I just want to watch the movie.
Saying that I can only peruse the film on a "licensed device" is racketeering (I'm looking at you, iTunes!)
The only protection they have is their flimsy "encryption". Flimsy because it gets broken by a couple of guys in a couple of weeks (thanks doom9 people!) Because the RIAA/MPAA/etc aren't THAT stupid, they pushed for the DMCA with its non-circumventing rule. You cannot legally break encryption, even if you are not breaking the copyright it protects. Let me say that one more time. You can't break the encryption on your legally bought disks, even when you just want to watch the movie. Said in yet another way: every person in the USA watching a DVD on their Linux system is a criminal under the DMCA.
> To do so you have to be privy to secret information (i.e. keys). To obtain these you must be an AACS LA licensee, or obtain them illicitly.
It's only illicit because of the DMCA. There is nothing wrong with me opening the hood of my car, replacing a couple of parts and driving off if that suits my fancy. The car is mine, the manufacturer has nothing to say about it any more (bad car analogy: cars aren't usually copyrighted. But you get my point)
> While you could contort this into meaning they've given you permission to decrypt it, they've not given you the right to obtain the keys you would need to do so.
I don't understand how you can say that. They have obviously given me explicit permission to watch the damn movie. The movie is encrypted. Do I need to spell it out? How does it NOT follow that I can decrypt the movie? It's so obvious that it's painful. Again, the only protection they have from me doing what I'm supposed to do with the movie is the DMCA.
What the **AA successfully does is turn the copyright system into a "we can say what you can do with our stuff because of copyright". Copyright law was never intended that way. Copyright gives the holder a government granted, limited monopoly on distribution. The starting point is that we can do with our stuff what we want. Anything. Copyright was invented to give artists incentive to make more of their art by giving them a short monopoly over the distribution, making them the only selling point of the art, so they can make money. It's like the difference between opt-in and opt-out. It used to be that we could do anything, except for a few things (ie distributing content), for a short time (some years), because of the copyright. The **AA makes it sound like we can do nothing because the content is theirs, except for the few things they allow. This is wrong because it goes against the grain of the law.
He has to run from the law becuase he shared his work. It is perfectly legal to create a decryption system to decrypt discs you own. You just can't share it with anybody. That's the catch-22 in the fair use provisions of the DMCA - you're allowed to excecise your fair use rights and decrypt works you own (i.e. have a non-exclusive licence to), but the law forbids anyone from distributing such tools, meaning you have to develop it yourself.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?